Malmquist v. Hellenic Community of Minneapolis, Inc.

• Citation: 163 Minn. 10,203 N.W. 420
• Decision Date: 17 April 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24463.,24463.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Parties: MALMQUIST v. HELLENIC COMMUNITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Inc. (two cases).

203 N.W. 420

163 Minn. 10

MALMQUIST v. HELLENIC COMMUNITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Inc. (two cases).

No. 24463.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 17, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Mathias Baldwin, Judge.

Separate actions by William Malmquist and by Nina Malmquist, his wife, against the Hellenic Community of Minneapolis, Incorporated. From orders for judgment for defendants, notwithstanding verdicts for plaintiffs in both cases, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Olaf L. Bruce, of Minneapolis, for appellants.

John G. Priebe, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

STONE, J.

Two actions, one by a husband and the other by his wife, for personal injuries suffered by the latter in an automobile collision. Judgment was ordered for defendants notwithstanding the verdicts for plaintiffs in both cases. Plaintiffs appeal.

Defendant's vehicle was a school bus. The learned trial judge failed to indicate the ground upon which the order for judgment was placed, but our understanding is that he was of the opinion either that, at the time of the collision, the chauffeur of the bus was not a servant of defendant or that, if he was, he was not acting at the time being within the scope of his employment. We have no occasion to consider the first of these possible bases for the order under review, because the second compels affirmance.

The customary and only authorized use of the bus was to make a tour during the afternoon to collect numerous children and deliver them about 4 o'clock at a school maintained by defendants in southeast Minneapolis. On the afternoon of the collision the chauffeur started much earlier than usual, and, with a youthful companion, went on an excursion into northeast Minneapolis. He assigns no reason, and the record discloses none other than his admission that he was killing time and the flimsy excuse that he was in need of gasoline. At the point of collision he was fully 13 blocks off his regular route, and had been still further afield, for he was on his way back to start for the children when he collided with plaintiffs' automobile. There is no suggestion that he had in mind as a source of supply any particular gasoline station off his route, particularly one a mile or more away and toward the city's outskirts. On the contrary, he could have gotten gasoline, if needed, on his regular route and at the usual place where gasoline was purchased for defendant.

It requires no more than this brief statement to indicate that the case is...